Who Destroys the Marriage? Cheating Husband, Betrayed Wife, or Other Woman?

"Making love with a woman and sleeping with a woman are two separate passions, not merely different but opposite. Love does not make itself felt in the desire for copulation (a desire that extends to an infinite number of women) but in the desire for shared sleep (a desire limited to one woman)." Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being

Two fascinating, powerful articles I've read recently (available here and here) have led me to revisit the issue of who is really to blame when a marriage collapses under the unbearable weight of what is normally an otherwise inconsequential extra-marital affair.

Are we justified in blaming the normally middle-aged man, who should have controlled himself? Why would he risk so much for so little?

Explanations are easy to come by, ranging from economics (He finally has enough money and status to be attractive to sexy young women at the peak of their reproductive power) to existential dread (he's coming to terms with his own mortality by lashing out symbolically against his own impending old age and death) to the wife's life cycle (she's nearing menopause so he's biologically driven toward the fertility of younger women). Each of these may have some measure of truth, but none answers the most pressing question: Why do men have such overwhelming hunger for variety in their sexual partners-not just at mid-life, but always?

The Coolidge effect has been discussed elsewhere. Essentially, it's just a scientific way of saying men (like many male mammals) need variety in partners to maintain sexual interest. If the ghost of Calvin Coolidge weren't haunting him, a man would simply buy a DVD or two of his favorite porn actress and watch it over and over the rest of his life. Knowing how the movie ends is hardly going to ruin the experience for him If you've never been to a porn gateway web site, you'll be astounded by the variety and specificity of the offerings there: everything from "unshaved Japanese lesbians" to "tattooed redheads" to "overweight older gals."

When researchers decided to look at this issue to develop a Sexual Boredom Scale, they found that for men, sexual boredom was correlated with variety in partners (or lack thereof), while for women, it was more related to variety in activity. In other words, women were more likely to be satisfied by changes in the sexual what, while men (gay or straight) were more likely to respond to a changes in the sexual whom. It's a simple, unavoidable truth almost everyone knows to be true, but few dare to discuss: variety and change are the necessary spice of the sex life of the male of our species.

But even having an intellectual understanding of this aspect of many men's inner reality doesn't make acceptance any easier for many women. Writer and film director Nora Ephron has explored these issues in many of her films, including Heartburn, which was based on her own failed marriage. In a 2009 interview she explained how raising two sons had informed her view of men: "Boys are so sweet," she said. "But the problem with men is not whether they're nice or not. It's that it's hard for them at a certain point in their lives to stay true. It just is. It's almost not their fault." But then she added, "it feels like it's their fault if you are involved with any of them."

In a letter to his then-friend Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung wrote, "The prerequisite for a good marriage, it seems to me, is the license to be unfaithful." (January 30, 1910.)

Is there any truth to this? If men evolved over millions of years to seek sexual novelty (thus avoiding genetic stagnation in small groups of foragers in a sparsely populated planet), is it fair to condemn them now for responding to these ancient, evolved appetites?

What do you think? In future installments, I'll look at this all too common situation from the perspective of the betrayed wife and the home-wrecking other woman.

Update: Anthropologist/Science historian Eric Michael Johnson has posted a very well-informed comment on this post at his blog here:

Why is it that from one perspective (say, the wife's, or society's), affairs are considered to destroy marriages, whereas from the opposite perspective (that of the other woman), the received wisdom is that "men never leave"?

Why the disconnect?

Obviously, it's not easy to have clear-cut data, given the touchiness of the subject and the great deal of secrecy surrounding it, but the wildly varying viewpoints and beliefs are striking.

In the environment in which humans evolved, it was not uncommon for women to die during childbirth. In fact, one can argue that the odds may have been as high as one in four or five for any given pregnancy. Yes, male mortality was also high (though not always so), but it would not exactly seem to be expected that males mating monogamously for life would have resulted from such a situation. Men had to get used to losing their mates/wives, and it goes without saying that Plan B involves another woman. So at least the potential had to be there.

The same could also be said for the common practice of tribes raiding their neighbors for women, because a guy could also lose his mate/wife this way, though its not clear which direction the causality arrow points with this. Is it the shortage of women which causes the theft and thus makes variety evolutionarily adaptive, or is it a predilection for variety which causes the theft in the first place?

Moreover, women in the distant past (and in many primitive cultures today) nurse their child for a much longer time than is currently the practice in the Modern West, often as long as 3-4 years. When you add in the relatively long gestation period in human females, well you may be talking around 5 years in what was then a rather short life as an adult of maybe only 15 years where it wouldn't have been functional for guys to sit around twiddling their thumbs rather than "getting busy", again with another woman. Women who are pregnant or nursing are not fertile, and it would not have been functional for men to find them sexy or attractive. All this may have been why polygamous systems evolved in so many places around the globe, as males who could took additional wives while an earlier one was not available for more reproduction related activities. The Pill making women fake being pregnant (in order to make any fertilized egg not implant) could be an additional important factor along these lines in today's world.

Hi. Do you have any sources for the figure of one death for every four or five pregnancies in prehistory? I'm not disputing it, but I haven't read that and would like to take a look at the studies, if you can point me to them. Thanks.

I hate the concept of a home wrecker. I think women do such a diservice to our gender by perpetuating stereotypes of the evil vixen coming in and stealing men. Blaming the other woman is like getting high and claiming the cocaine made you do it. It always astounds me the number of times I hear women refer to other women as "sluts" or "hos" as if women's sexual actions negate all other qualities; that women are defined by thier sexuality, not thier humanity. Men don't have this same type of brutal classifying. Although attributing a man's affair to a midlife crisis is a bit trivial it is still more complex than the concrete social labels immediately given to the "other woman." I enjoyed this blog and look forward to hearing about the other women in your coming posts.

Excuse my english; it is learned at school in germany.
I di read all those articles and i missed two points:
- what´s a measurable definition of love and of luck in love
- what´s a measurable, countable defintion of a couple

I offer you a trial for both:
love is the resonance of 95% of all together done and thought things that make the wife and the man feel safe, warm und pushed a step higher in the body-feeling level; if people always reach for the top 100%-position of absolute love they are idiots that burn their 2-people-dancing-and-singing in the fire of counting orgasms and only highest moments. The luck is bound in all the little waves. Therein is enough energy that sometimes when they resonancing in a solitone-state there can be a freak-wave; thats luck.

A couple is not only two people with memories and wishes an abilitys an ressources it is the vector-product of this all. Therefore you have to multiply all the little factors of two person-vectors dreams and realities and then proof and test and try to correct and to concentrate in the middle (the erngy-middle, the time-middle and the dream-middle) of both persons two dance und flow and sing and grow around this common-middle of both.

Regardless of whether or not men are driven by an evolutionary need to experience variety in sexual partners, I believe it is rather convenient (and even insulting to men) to say that they are perhaps not at fault for their extramarital affairs. Humans are an evolved species capable of higher reasoning and the ability to override impulses. I'm not saying its easy, but saying a man might not be at fault for an affair is like saying someone is not at fault for eating the candy and junkfood that made them fat. After all, are we not driven by a biological need to seek out fatty foods?

I believe everybody has the same feelings over time - both men and women. After that, it all comes down to morals, values and the intellectual ability to responsibly work through the feelings and temptation. Even if this requires counseling and soul searching.

As for the question "Who Destroys the Marriage? Cheating Husband, Betrayed Wife, or Other Woman?" The answer will never be the "other" woman/man, there will always be another "other." The answer is 1) the married cheater and 2)related spouse. Years of unresolved issues and too many things left unsaid. Communicate and renegotiate... and more importantly to LISTEN.

I find it's over stating for dramatic effect to say that intrinsically the male should be viewed as having his sexual drive prefer variety, if acted upon, a forgivable “glitch”. I would hold someone to task for cheating as it is still CHOICE. Whether hard wired or not, the choice remains, this sexual drive is not a reflex reaction which is out of their control such as a sneeze or hiccup. It is understood that humans are beings of cognition and capable of understanding the ramifications of their choices. (Regardless if it is difficult.) People make many societal and interpersonal relationship decisions as to be monogamous or not, etc., to each his own.

I am not basing my opinions on anything within the bounds of morality, just stating that I hold any cognizant being to a standard by which they represent themselves and their word. To just make over simplified claims, about an innate genetically induced propensity, is just another way today’s society attempts to dodge life’s tough CHOICES.

Its kind of like putting the male on the level of a dog in heat. The difference is that humans have a choice on a mental level, whereas animals do not. I keep hearing this story over and over that men are genetically programed to be dogs in heat. I don't buy it! Its just a cop out and an excuse for variety to satisfy their own mental and moral inclinations without guilt and society promotes these actions on TV, etc.. It is very sad.

How are you supposed to bring up the children, support your family, and satisfy your own need for love and tenderness, as a woman, then?

It seems awfully convenient to me, that ALL stone-age urges, such as poop in the office, eat with your fingers and chew with mouth open, yawn and sleep whenever you feel like it, stop unpleasant and non-rewarding activities, even kill or mutilate competitors for resources - make your pick! - all of them are to be controlled by modern men. All except the one to sleep with any woman you like.

There is, undeniably, a cultural component to the way that we address biological urges. For which other area of life do we make the imagined, lost world of the savanna the guideline for modern behavior? Non other than male sexuality, it seems to me.

You make some good points, which I'll address in a future post. As for pooping in the office, I'd suggest we make allowances for our evolved tendencies all the time. For example, we have bathrooms near the office because our bodies have certain limits. We exercise because we evolved to live active lives. Our diet should reflect the diets of the stone age (if they did, we'd have far less obesity, diabetes, and so on). So there are prices to be paid when we change too radically from the life we've evolved to have.

What was the frequency of diabetes, obesity, etc as recently as one hundred years ago? Based on the longevity of monogamy as the statistically dominant and culturally condoned human sexual practice, can you think of other evolved behaviors that are not currently accommodated or that cultures have prohibited/disdained for similarly long periods of time? Perhaps sometimes the price is worth it?

It is absolutely ludicrous to give anyone the license to behave in a certain way because "it is evolutionarily adaptable" or "the nature of our biology." If we do, then we are depriving ourselves of what makes us human--free will and the power to overcome our biology--to make choices, to have a conscience. Part of being human is the ability to repress urges, and I think that men and women are certainly capable of doing this. The problem now is that we are perpetuating the acceptance of infidelity by validating the idea that men need sexual variety by giving it a biological basis.

Men actually benefit from monogamy because now everyone has a partner, while in our evolutionary past, it is more likely that every woman had a successful, strong and resourceful partner (although they might have had to share amongst many women), while most men did not have a female partner at all.

I take it no one is shocked females tend to be the ones saying it is personal responsibility and choice, on this particular topic. (Or does it tend to be mostly females posting here?) I’d like to see how a male would react if it were claimed it was his genetic and natural place to be always less intelligent or subservient to a female. Ohhh then there’d be some arguments that He would CHOOSE to over ride that. LMAO

I guess woman expect us to overcome our inherited programming through intellect and sheer force of will. Some can do it, some can't. As far as gaining tacit approval from you spouse for cheating, doesn't that go on in some cultures outside of the United States? Pratical if not preferable.

So, yes and yes. Women do expect us (rightly so) to reign in our urges by force of will. And why can't we? Are we not thinking beings?

That said, my partner has told me, quite clearly, that the simple act of me having sex with another woman is not the incredible betrayal that me getting emotionally involved with another woman would be. Does that give me free reign to shag as many as I can, provided I always go home for dinner? The thinking part of me declares it does not.

I never thought to control my husbands behavior in any way, but him cheating on me 9 out of 10 years of our relationship, all while I was caring for our 2 babies and his business, and all while him telling me it was just sex, is all A LITTLE TOO MUCH TO TAKE IN. And frankly, where the fuck are morals? He turns 50 this year. Should I believe him when he says he'll never do it again?

thank you; that is the essential point: what is the truth really; why do we trust a person: because he or she did not lye in the past; there is no hint no assurance or safety that he or she do it not in the next step of the live. All you have is the balance in your ressources in mind, money and time to make mistakes and survive mistakes as lies. why should we not lie, because it is effective, because the memories get easier (not three stories instead of one: what happend physically, what did i say, who knows the difference between reality and words). Why should am women believe the words of a man? because its easy: no! because its nice: no!, only because of her ressources she bet on him; always only bet 50 %; then you can correct an mistake with the rest of YOU (your money, your wishes, your plans, your abilities, your strongth in mind; why are there so many words for the german-word "Mut" that means that you have the force to decide this moment, because this is the only moment yo can decide and controll; the past is gone, the future is far; why do you don´t make the next step in your life; because of fear to make mistakes? how will you learn to grow, when you dont make mistakes? Every time when a partnership is gone, you beginn at a higher level the same play; are you wiser now?

Yes AI, yes we do. Sheer force of will. Lol. The point is not the multiple partnering via approval, it is the supposed "tacit" understanding that women should give males a free pass for floundering due to their genetic/evolutionary propensity to wander.

How can you justify it being practical to have open partnering for men? Practical for the male perhaps, as he would have free reign to spread his progeny thru out the local hotties without coming home to an irate spouse. Without a doubt, most men would NOT permit their female partners the same freedom. I suppose this is when you'd use same said science to support a claim that it is genetic/evolutionarily correct because of the males need for keeping his DNA firmly ensconced in his own female mates.

Time to live beyond the evolution of our species and the primate breeding tendencies we still have hiding in the deep end of the gene pool. Maybe women give men too much respect on the evolutionary ladder and we should demote them to something a little closer to the Bonobo.

The idea that in nature in general, OR in the not-so-distant past of human history, all males had access to sex with multiple partners in a year-round free-for-all is pure fiction and has nothing to do with sound scientific studies.

While it is probably true that the males of most species would aim to be as genetically successful as possible, we can clearly see in many species "social" rules at work that effect "responsible behavior" on the part of the male toward the female and the offspring.

Where the male is not contributing to the raising of the offspring, there are social groups in place in most higher-developed mammals in which mothers receive support and protection.

Many other behaviors in fact prevent the production of too many young ones that the group cannot successfully raise. Take wolves for example: alpha couple, and only alpha couple, copulates and has pups, everyone else in the pack contributes to raising them.

The cost and investment of raising a human child is today much higher than it has ever been before. Yet, some evolutionary psychologists seem to suggest a system in which mothers receive neither social support from the society at large (that would be SOCIALISM!) nor adequate support from the sires of their children.

That strikes me not only as unfair but also as illogical and in contradiction to recognized research on animal behavior.

Anon-"The cost and investment of raising a human child is today much higher than it has ever been before. Yet, some evolutionary psychologists seem to suggest a system in which mothers receive neither social support from the society at large (that would be SOCIALISM!) nor adequate support from the sires of their children.

That strikes me not only as unfair but also as illogical and in contradiction to recognized research on animal behavior."

Very well said. Societal evolution (human) is something that can be viewed within individual life times and within recorded history. Our current formulation today is not the same as it was millenia ago. Expecting to "gift horse" one sex of a society with carte blanche to indulge in intercourse where the mood strikes is ludicrous. It should be noted, the male desire for multiple partners was for propagating as many offspring as possible. Todays males have little wish or need to do that. They have no desire for the costs and cares to support a multitude of random offspring, as Anon noted, so as the desire for a plethora a children was negated so can the "need" to dip the wick in any female that looks interesting.

I'm on the road at the moment, so I won't be able to respond in any depth for a few days, but these are all excellent comments. Not to say that I agree with all the points made, but they're provocative, informed opinions being expressed here. I'm honored by the calibre of my readers. Thanks to all of you.

why does the cheating man, blame his "girlfriend" when she blows the whistle on him to the wife? He then says "Its your fault I lost my kids, if you had just kept up the pretense, all would be fine". But it wasnt fine, time with the other became les and less. Now that secret is out, (he still is denying all to the wife) he is keeping the girlfriend at arms length. Should the girlfriend feel to blame for husbands rejection? Please I need some insight here.

Explanations are easy to come by, ranging from economics (He finally has enough money and status to be attractive to sexy young women at the peak of their reproductive power) to existential dread (he's coming to terms with his own mortality by lashing out symbolically against his own impending old age and death) to the wife's life cycle (she's nearing menopause so he's biologically driven toward the fertility of younger women).

Above you read, EXCUSES not Explanations!

Staying true and faithful to a spouse is a choice. It Is a persons fault if they, he or she, makes a choice to betray a spouse.

Fault belongs in the hands of the person who has prior commitment, when faced with the choice chooses to do what he/she knows is not right...(i would have used acceptable in the place of "right" however these things have become acceptable in our society)then takes action to be unfaithful...

Fault is not to be placed on the spouse, no matter what. Nor is the blame to be placed on the home-wrecking other women, unless she/he is being unfaithful to her/his spouse.

It seems to me wishful thinking on the part of men to believe that men crave variety in their sexual partners, but women don't need it. Is this form of evolutionary psych is just an attempt to justify the old double standard, where it's natural and normal for men to cheat, but wrong and shameful for women to do it?

Women cheat, too. Women fantasize about a variety of sexual partners, not just sexual acts. In this and so many ways, men and women are more alike than different. There's a lot more variability within the sexes than there is between them.

I agree with a lot of the comments made already. As stated, we are able to override our biological impulses in many other cases, why should there be a free pass on this one?

My idea of cheating has always been that something isn't right in the relationship, something is lacking (communication, etc). Recently my own partner was severely tempted and almost followed through on an affair and later said "It would never have happened if we weren't in a long distance relationship." An excuse it may be, but it hits upon an important point - the lack of intimacy drove him to seek it out elsewhere. Thankfully, his lovely conscience got in the way before he actually *did* cheat.

The point I'm making is that even in the perhaps "perfect" set-up to be lured into cheating, the capacity to overcome that drive is always there. He also stated "When I thought about why I would do this, and if it was worth it... I realized that it would be a horrible mistake because I love you. It was stupid, because there is simply nothing wrong with you... why break your trust?"

Relationships are not wholly about having children, hopefully (perhaps idealistically) they're about the mutual benefits of loving another person. When entering into a commitment of exclusivity, both partners need to make sacrifices... if for males it is giving up the old evolutionary drive to screw lots of females, so be it!

Clearly, the cuckolded female spouse is to blame. Had her expectations been clear-eyed, there simply wouldn't be any problem. She should coordinate her demands upon her husband with reality -- that is, exclude sexual monogamy from what marital fidelity requires of him. Face it: men, far more frequently than women, can love their wives to the fullest extent while having extra-marital sexual relations.

"Face it: men, far more frequently than women, can love their wives to the fullest extent while having extra-marital sexual relations."

While perhaps true in some cases, I'd like to bring up the fact that a drawn out affair will undoubtedly lead to emotional attachment.

Furthermore, the big question here is "How many women are willing to share their husbands?" (and expanding on that, for how much longer would she love a husband who is spending time chasing other women?)

A female has a tendency to copulate with a male with the strongest genes when she is fertile. She will also exchange sex for food, protection - non-agression. Will human males accept these biological inclinations as easily as their own need to "spread their seed" and one for variety? The fear of female infidelity made men paranoid and women limited and controlled. Obviously, they don't want to rear stanger's child/ren. We understand this. Our culture has however, a different attitude toward male infidelity. We are told, like in this article that it is natural, almost neccesary. He gets bored, which excuses everything. One night stand might bring some relief. And some STDs. Ooops! What if a mother feels bored or isolated? Why do we have higher expectations?
And the poor home wrecker! I agree that prime responsibility for infidelity lies with the marriage partners. However, the other woman is in direct competition for resources - time, love, money with the child/ren and a mother, who had to put limits on her career or work. "The other women" I've encountred in my life were, under a pretense of love, after the resources: time, protection, emotions, money. To have it they had to deprive someone else. None of them seemed to understand it. They portrayed themselves as victims, instead.
What if there are no children? Could we live like bonobos? If both parties agree and understand what they agree to why not. But, then, why marry at all?

If men want to be polygamous they shouldn't get married, end of story. That way they can screw around as much as they want without hurting women who want faithful husbands and could be with better men. Men shouldn't take advantage of women just to get access to the comfort and stability of a shared home life or vice versa. Don't marry just to get somebody who will cook and clean or warm the bed. If you can't take the monotony, don't promise monogamy. Do everyone a favor and stay in bachelor mode until you are too old to chase women.

I dont think its so mucht he fact that men want a variety of women. Women find a variety of men acctractive also, and women cheat and some women sleep around too. I think where men goes wrong is with ther intentions- if they dont intend to be faithful to one, they must make this clear to all women. they cannot have the benefit of a partner, like a wife, and still have the benefit of being single, and being able to sleep around. the reason infidelity is so damaging is because there is an understanding of exclusivity- i do not hae a problem witha guy who just wants to sleep around, if thats what he wants them great, thats fine. its when he tells me i am the one he wants, yet is getting it on with another woman when i am not around, that is where the pain, disrespect, betrayal, etc.

Men cant have it both ways- they either want to be with a number of women, or they want one. the problem lies in them being unable to be honest about what they want. if they want more than one woman, then many women will be turned off by that, and discard them, yet some wont care, and some will even respect them more for being honest. however, instead of being honest despite what the women think, men will lie and make it seem like they are willing to be with just you, just so they can have sex with you, or whatever. thats not right, and thats where the true conflict arises. women dont like to be lied to, and if there is an understanding that you only want the woman your wife, stick it with. if thhings change, well, let her know you want to see other people. but men DONT because they just want both, but that is what causes so much pain between men and women in relationships. if he is just onest, sure, a woman can get mad or angry or sad or whatever, but she really cant do anything in the end except just accept the fact that he is choosing not to be exclusive. instead men lie and cheat. thats wy we women have such a problem with it- cuz the men arent honest about it!

Whenever I read this type of thing, I'm amazed at how people will drop romantic love and committment like a hot potato. I like those things, and I like sex, but I find treating sex simply like biological input to be pretty sad. We're human beings and we can do much better for ourselves as well as our spouses. And so what if we don't want to marry? It's funny how many people have pointed out that marriage is an institution that men made up to assuage their fears about female infidelity - so why are we acting like it's something women do to men?

Be a Man...! if you make a commitment, see it through. IF you make a promise, LIVE IT! It's a sign of character and just how "Bad" your "bad self" really is if you can LIVE your commitments and not look for a weasel every time some cure doll in short skirt turns your head. You entered into a contract of some sort with your mate when you decided to travel together. If you want out of that agreement a real man will attend to that agreement FIRST. I'm a man twice married, over sixty - so I speak from my own experience here... I "cheated" in my first marriage... no one in that situation escaped without scrapes and bruises. No one wins: not you, not the "other woman" and certainly not your partner. Everyone gets hurt. Get over yourself! Be a real man and get right i.e. be honest with everyone involved from the get go. That's the view from here.

It's interesting that none of the posts point out that in many European and Latin countries,extramarital affairs are condoned as long as they are kept strictly apart from marriage. A man may have a mistress, a woman may have a lover. It's generally not discussed as the intent is not to hurt one's spouse but to provide spice in one's life. Of course, I'm sure there are soul mates who marry and would find no joy in looking elsewhere for the love, amusement, companionship, communication or whatever it is they find in their partner. But I submit the majority of people, both men and women, look for variety and validation of their attractiveness outside the marriage, even if it's just a harmless flirt. These explorations often turn into affairs. And if they don't, it is all too often about fear of being caught and humiliated or made to pay up. I suppose many people seek the pat-on-the-back feeling of self denial in the name of virtue, or fear the loss of protection and the comfortable haven of habit. I've idly wondered if sex between consulting (and protected) adults were considered as lightly as a handshake or a hug, if it would have less allure. Finally, I'm convinced that women and men are equally tempted, else where do partners come from? The other woman. or man, is often married and seeking a fling as well.

I find my yearning for compassion, devotion, and fidelity (not only to people but even places) to be deeper and more satisfying then sexual desire. But sexual desire is nearly overpowering and consuming, though lacking a certain existential fulfillment. One loses a lot, in my opinion, in either: (1) living a life spent fulfilling sexual desire or (2) occasionally/frequently experimenting with multiple partners (in whatever manner that takes) while also supposedly living in a "monogamous" relationship. Something is lost in relationships that lack exclusive commitments or where partners fail to honor them. I do think understanding the origins and powerful drives that influence human behavior are instructive in living lives we may aspire to and forgiving each other our failings. After all, in my own life I can attest to the power sexual attraction has to obfuscate, conceal, avoid, and otherwise manipulate my thinking, my values (e.g. everything I stated above), and what "I" really want for myself and those I love. This does not necessarily impact actions, but it's not surprise to me that it does with many men.

I'd agree with the excerpt from "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" and disagree with Jung's quote. I submit one cannot have a "good" marriage with such license. Our time and attention are limited. Marriages suffer from unfaithfulness, but can still be maintained after such events, given some modicum of regret and at least an intention to behave differently. A license to have multiple partners seems to me a license to have multiple marriages/relationships that will inevitably jump from one to another over the years. If one values sexual pleasure and novelty over commitment and long term knowledge of another, then one can make a choice one way or the other. Having both seems practically contradictory. Maybe Jung was jokingly yearning for the impossible and I missed it?

One last question, is there really an urge in men for sexual novelty or is it more of an indiscriminate urge for sex with any female who crosses some attraction threshold? To put it in the form of a crude question, if a man were in the presence of let's say the same 5 women he deemed attractive whenever he had an urge (which is clearly often as everyone seems to agree), after having had sex with all 5 of them, would he eventually yearn for a sixth, seventh, etc. woman the next time he was aroused? I truly am curious about this, and have no particular bias one way or the other.

I've read about matriarchal society living in a remote region of China. women call the shots and invite men for sex. but they are not partners, there is no commitment. they seem perfectly happy. men have a variety of sexual partners, and no commitement and women have a variety of partners with no commitement to a particular guy. the problem from man's point of view is his lack of conrol and power. in patriarchal society he choses control, comfort and exclusive rights to his woman. but many wish to have it both ways. and they have it. it's a lack of women's power which allows for different kinds of abuse including infidelity, beatings, rape and other disrespectful treatments. my point is; you want variety , let women have the same rights. and don't use science to rationalize your behaviour.

I have lived and worked in each of the 5 largest European countries, and have failed to observe the phenomenon of tolerating infidelity. I have never had colleagues joke or brag about keeping mistresses, and infidelities, once discovered, have been discussed in hushed and shocked tones.

That said, politicians in most European countries need not fear losing office if sexual peccadillos are made public. In Italy, for instance, Silvio Berlusconi's popularity has soared as his conquests have come to light.

Indeed, in most or all modern, Western countries, it is acceptable for extremely powerful men to have mistresses. Within this microclimate of power, different rules apply, and that is equally true in the US. Bill Clinton is a fine example of this. The only difference between the US and Europe is in voter reactions when this conduct is made known outside the circles of power.

If Bill Clinton were "a fine example" of it being "acceptable for extremely powerful men to have mistresses," the name Monica Lewinsky would mean nothing to us and he (along with his wife and daughter) wouldn't have been publicly humiliated in televised impeachment hearings. Really, it's like citing the Salem witch trials to show how tolerant the Puritans were!

Sometimes the other woman just simply has a higher sex drive than the wife and may be more willing to try new things. In addition, sometimes the other person man or woman may remind one of a past life when they had the absence of responsibilities. While it is wrong to cheat on one's spouse, the bible(1 Corinthians 7) also suggests that it is also wrong to deprive one's spouse of sexual relations for a period of time,suggesting that this behavior is a fraud within itself, and putting your spouse at risk to giving in to this lustful behavior,which is never mentioned in this age old discussion. I am not saying that it is a justified behavior to cheat on one's spouse because of a lack of sex at home. However, I do think that sometimes a woman can get involved in many other things in the home and work,thus having a tendency to put the husband's sexual needs on the back burner. Furthermore, this is not a male/female discussion, it appears to go both ways when one partner's needs are not being met, people tend to compensate for their needs by hurting the one's closest to them.

Where has the romance, passion, companionship, mutual need, and sense of each others fulfillment been addressed here? Well?

DUH, it does not take a clinical behavioral specialist, nuclear physicist or cave man for that matter, to realize, that love and life, and intimacy is a gift. To fill the needs of the other, in life's journey, that is what is being really challenged here. Treat each other simply as the "golden that rules", if not be ready for collateral effect. Newton's third law - remember the apple ?